Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 60 (9209 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Skylink
Post Volume: Total: 919,463 Year: 6,720/9,624 Month: 60/238 Week: 60/22 Day: 1/14 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is design? Can we not find evidence of design on earth or in the universe?
NOT JULIUS
Member (Idle past 4728 days)
Posts: 219
From: Rome
Joined: 11-29-2006


Message 31 of 185 (485266)
10-06-2008 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Blue Jay
10-06-2008 4:41 PM


bluejay writes:
but I do not agree that another form of life couldn't have arisen if the earth were too close to the Sun for our kind of life to arise
How do you know? Have you created life?
bluejay writes:
I have seen insects that look and move like sticks... but, obviously, they are not sticks. A loon looks, acts and swims like a duck, but is not a duck. Some actual ducks do not quack like other ducks, but they are still ducks.
the designer of that insect that looks like a stick is telling you the goal: to fool predators or preys of that insect. A loon doesn't look like a duck ( its bill is pointed) so it is not a duck. Of course there are differences in the quacking of certain ducks, but they are still ducks.
blue jay writes:
I have seen pictures of a rock formation that looks like it was carved into geometric shapes by skilled craftsmen, but it was actually formed by natural, non-intelligent processes.
But, you believe that the faces on Mt Rushmore are designed even though you probably don't know who designed them. As regards those rock formation that looks like geometric shapes to you, here are possibilities:
1) it happened by accident,
2) some ancient men may have actually aided nature so that those shapes come to be. Just like my wife who aided a plant to shape like an arc--even this was by design.
Either way, we can't really be sure.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Blue Jay, posted 10-06-2008 4:41 PM Blue Jay has not replied

  
NOT JULIUS
Member (Idle past 4728 days)
Posts: 219
From: Rome
Joined: 11-29-2006


Message 32 of 185 (485267)
10-06-2008 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Huntard
10-06-2008 5:08 PM


Face on Mars?
huntard writes:
Here's a picture of it: http://a.abcnews.com/...chnology/apr_mars_face_06921_ssv.jpg
The camera that took this picture was not manipulated. Furthermore, the point I'm trying to make here is just because something LOOKS designed, it doesn't mean it is. We KNOW the face is not designed, it is a natural feature of Mars, and only because the light hit it at that particular angle when the picture was taken did it look like a face.
Sorry, I don't see a face of a man. It looks to me like black spots on spotted grayish background. Nothing else.
Thanks, again for that Mt. Rushmore thingy.
Edited by Doubting Too, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Huntard, posted 10-06-2008 5:08 PM Huntard has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 185 (485271)
10-06-2008 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by NOT JULIUS
10-06-2008 4:49 PM


Re: Anthropic reasoning voided
What was the goal of the kid who made the pothole to fit the puddle? Was it for fun? At any rate if there was a goal for the pothole--for the fun of the kid--then obviously the kid designed the pothole.
Actually, the pothole wasn't designed at all and there is no kid.
stragler writes:
Did the puddle form in the available hole or was the hole designed to form that exact puddle?
I don't exacly know where this line of questioning is leading.
If the Earth is some distance from the sun and then life evolves to fit within the conditions of that distance, then you'd be a fool to say that the sun was put at that distance so that life could fit.
In the same way, potholes are erroded into roads by natural process, then water fills them up and conforms to the shape of the hole. By the same reasoning above you would conclude that the hole was designed for the shape of the water. Its just a little easier to see the foolishness in the reasoning because obviously the water conforms to the hole, the hole does not conform to the water.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by NOT JULIUS, posted 10-06-2008 4:49 PM NOT JULIUS has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by NOT JULIUS, posted 10-06-2008 6:24 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 319 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 34 of 185 (485273)
10-06-2008 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by NOT JULIUS
10-06-2008 4:49 PM


Re: Anthropic reasoning voided
DT writes:
Straggler writes:
Did the puddle form in the available hole or was the hole designed to form that exact puddle?
I don't exacly know where this line of questioning is leading. But, here's my try.
What was the goal of the kid who made the pothole to fit the puddle? Was it for fun? At any rate if there was a goal for the pothole--for the fun of the kid--then obviously the kid designed the pothole.
Do you really think potholes are formed by kids planning puddles?
Or are potholes formed by random wear and tear on roads over long periods of time?
This is what I meant by pothole Pothole - Wikipedia
The point is to ask whether aspects of nature end up fitting the available environment or whether the environment need be designed to support a particular aspect of nature.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by NOT JULIUS, posted 10-06-2008 4:49 PM NOT JULIUS has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by NOT JULIUS, posted 10-06-2008 7:41 PM Straggler has replied

  
NOT JULIUS
Member (Idle past 4728 days)
Posts: 219
From: Rome
Joined: 11-29-2006


Message 35 of 185 (485276)
10-06-2008 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by New Cat's Eye
10-06-2008 5:47 PM


You Probably Got it Wrong
Catholic writes:
If the Earth is some distance from the sun and then life evolves to fit within the conditions of that distance, then you'd be a fool to say that the sun was put at that distance so that life could fit.
I think you probably got it wrong. Here, I'm putting it on argument form to simplify.
Premise (p)1: To design is to create or execute something in a skilled manner with a purpose or goal in mind.
P2: If something is made or executed in a highly skilled manner with a purpose or goal in mind, then it is evidence of design.
P3: The right distance of the earth to the sun, and the right conditions on earth is towards a goal--life on earth.
P4: There is life on earth (the goal)
Conclusion: From P1 to P4, we can conclude that the right distance of the earth to the sun, AND the right conditions on earth is by design towards a goal--life on earth.
Wrong analogies: The analogy of the puddle and the potholes, and the "face of man on mars" do not apply. They simply have no goals.
Edited by Doubting Too, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-06-2008 5:47 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Coragyps, posted 10-06-2008 7:07 PM NOT JULIUS has replied
 Message 41 by Deftil, posted 10-06-2008 8:28 PM NOT JULIUS has replied
 Message 44 by ramoss, posted 10-06-2008 10:30 PM NOT JULIUS has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 3204 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 36 of 185 (485278)
10-06-2008 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by NOT JULIUS
10-06-2008 2:30 PM


Hi Doubting Too,
DT writes:
I mean if the earth was placed in just the right distance from the sun--give or take a few deviations from time to time--for life to flourish then that which caused it to be so must either
Ok, lets say it was placed...first off, by whom or what?
1. Naturally occuring cosmic events that lead to the formation of planets?
2. A postulated deity?
a)be a dumb,
b) appears to be brilliant, or
c) really brilliant--which implies high level of skill
Which is which?
*Well, if we go with 'naturally occuring cosmic events that leads to the formations of planets...', then I would say that the laws of nuclear fusion, the attraction of gravity, and the time that it takes to unwind these events, is nothing short of amazing, but it would only require intelligence if it was programed to do all this. Is that what you are saying?
*if you mean placed there by a postulated deity, I would ask for proof that disproves the natural order of said cosmic events.

"All great truths begin as blasphemies"
"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by NOT JULIUS, posted 10-06-2008 2:30 PM NOT JULIUS has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by NOT JULIUS, posted 10-06-2008 6:52 PM onifre has replied

  
NOT JULIUS
Member (Idle past 4728 days)
Posts: 219
From: Rome
Joined: 11-29-2006


Message 37 of 185 (485281)
10-06-2008 6:52 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by onifre
10-06-2008 6:33 PM


Hi Onfire,
Ok, lets say it was placed...first off, by whom or what?
1. Naturally occuring cosmic events that lead to the formation of planets?
2. A postulated deity?
a)be a dumb,
b) appears to be brilliant, or
c) really brilliant--which implies high level of skill
Which is which?
*Well, if we go with 'naturally occuring cosmic events that leads to the formations of planets...', then I would say that the laws of nuclear fusion, the attraction of gravity, and the time that it takes to unwind these events, is nothing short of amazing, but it would only require intelligence if it was programed to do all this. Is that what you are saying?
By whom or by what? Does it even matter? The fact is there is this earth placed just on the right distance to the sun. This AND the right conditions on earth supports a goal--life. As explained in my post just above yours, this to me is evidence of design.
And then you asked: 1) by naturally occuring events, or 2) by a postulated diety? There are other possibilities. A combination of both could be a possibility.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by onifre, posted 10-06-2008 6:33 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by onifre, posted 10-07-2008 2:03 PM NOT JULIUS has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 988 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 38 of 185 (485284)
10-06-2008 7:07 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by NOT JULIUS
10-06-2008 6:24 PM


Re: You Probably Got it Wrong
They simply have no goals.
But you, with nothing but bald assertion, are telling us life is an Ultimate Goal.
I say it ain't. Particularly, as someone has pointed out, in light of the indisputable fact that over 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of the universe, by either volume or by mass, is totally inimical to life. We're an accident. Get used to it.

"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by NOT JULIUS, posted 10-06-2008 6:24 PM NOT JULIUS has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by NOT JULIUS, posted 10-06-2008 7:24 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
NOT JULIUS
Member (Idle past 4728 days)
Posts: 219
From: Rome
Joined: 11-29-2006


Message 39 of 185 (485285)
10-06-2008 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Coragyps
10-06-2008 7:07 PM


Re: You Probably Got it Wrong
Coragyps writes:
But you, with nothing but bald assertion, are telling us life is an Ultimate Goal.
I say it ain't. Particularly, as someone has pointed out, in light of the indisputable fact that over 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of the universe, by either volume or by mass, is totally inimical to life. We're an accident. Get used to it.
First of all I'm not bald. I have hair. They aren't showing though. You see I even have diapers yet. :=):=). I don't get your point. If 99.99999999% is inimical to life, then how is it that life--the GOAL--is here? By accident? By what probability? 1/ 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000. I don't believe you. I'll bet my diaper to your shirt someone--or something to some--designed us. Change your mind and don't be slave to blind chance, please, Uncle?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Coragyps, posted 10-06-2008 7:07 PM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, posted 10-06-2008 9:49 PM NOT JULIUS has replied
 Message 47 by Huntard, posted 10-07-2008 1:56 PM NOT JULIUS has replied

  
NOT JULIUS
Member (Idle past 4728 days)
Posts: 219
From: Rome
Joined: 11-29-2006


Message 40 of 185 (485286)
10-06-2008 7:41 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Straggler
10-06-2008 5:51 PM


Re: Anthropic reasoning voided
Stragller writes:
The point is to ask whether aspects of nature end up fitting the available environment or whether the environment need be designed to support a particular aspect of nature.
I think the point to ask is: What is design? Can we not find evidence on earth or in the universe?
At any rate, I have answered your analogy regarding the pothole--bottom of my message # 35.
Edited by Doubting Too, : for clarity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Straggler, posted 10-06-2008 5:51 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Straggler, posted 10-07-2008 3:32 PM NOT JULIUS has replied

  
Deftil
Member (Idle past 4709 days)
Posts: 128
From: Virginia, USA
Joined: 04-19-2008


Message 41 of 185 (485288)
10-06-2008 8:28 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by NOT JULIUS
10-06-2008 6:24 PM


Re: You Probably Got it Wrong
DT writes:
Premise (p)1: To design is to create or execute something in a skilled manner with a purpose or goal in mind.
P2: If something is made or executed in a highly skilled manner with a purpose or goal in mind, then it is evidence of design.
P3: The right distance of the earth to the sun, and the right conditions on earth is towards a goal--life on earth.
P4: There is life on earth (the goal)
Conclusion: From P1 to P4, we can conclude that the right distance of the earth to the sun, AND the right conditions on earth is by design towards a goal--life on earth.
I'm curious if you actually think this is a good syllogism.
There is a logical fallacy in P3, namely begging the question. If you assume that life on Earth is a goal of someone or something, then obviously you will feel it is desgined. But the point of your argument is to establish this point, not assume it, and therefore the above syllogism is not logically sound. The task you have before you is to logically establish that life on Earth is the result of design, without utlilizing premises that already assume this conclusion.
DT writes:
Wrong analogies: The analogy of the puddle and the potholes, and the "face of man on mars" do not apply. They simply have no goals.
You are correct that they have no goals, in fact, this is the point that is being made by presenting them to you. They have the appearance of being goals though, without having actually been consciously designed. What this proves is that just because something may appear to us as having been designed, doesn't mean that it actually is. The appearance of design is not enough information for us to conclude actual design, we must prove that something has been designed from other premises than its appearance. Therefore, concluding that life on Earth is designed, just on the basis of its appearance, without having other premises to establish this point is faulty logic.
Also, a little FYI on Cydonia Mensae aka the "face on Mars"
quote:
In one of the images taken by Viking 1 on July 25, 1976, one of the Cydonian mesas, situated at 40.75 north latitude and 9.46 west longitude, had the appearance of a humanoid "Face on Mars". When the image was originally acquired, Viking chief scientist Gerry Soffen dismissed the "face" in image 35A72 as a "[trick] of light and shadow". However, a second image, 70A13, also shows the "Face" and was acquired 35 Viking orbits later at a different "sun-angle" than the 35A72 image. This latter discovery was made independently by two computer engineers at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Vincent DiPietro and Gregory Molenaar, who discovered the two misfiled images, Viking frames 35A72 and 70A13, while searching through NASA archives.
The occurrence of an object on Mars with a seemingly human face caught the attention of individuals and organisations interested in extraterrestrial intelligence and visitations to Earth, and the images were published in this context in 1977.
Cydonia (Mars) - Wikipedia
If you don't see the resemblance to a human face in the image in question, then you are certainly in the minority.
More info on the "face on Mars" - Science News | Science Mission Directorate
Edited by Deftil, : spelling

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by NOT JULIUS, posted 10-06-2008 6:24 PM NOT JULIUS has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by NOT JULIUS, posted 10-06-2008 9:11 PM Deftil has replied

  
NOT JULIUS
Member (Idle past 4728 days)
Posts: 219
From: Rome
Joined: 11-29-2006


Message 42 of 185 (485289)
10-06-2008 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Deftil
10-06-2008 8:28 PM


Re: You Probably Got it Wrong
Deftil writes:
I'm curious if you actually think this is a good syllogism.
I think a good syllogism must meet the following: All premises are true or at least possibly true, and the conclusion must logically flow from these premises. The above, IMHO, meets this.
Deftil writes:
There is a logical fallacy in P3, namely begging the question. If you assume that life on Earth is a goal of someone or something, then obviously you will feel it is desgined. But the point of your argument is to establish this point, not assume it, and therefore the above syllogism is not logically sound. The task you have before you is to logically establish that life on Earth is the result of design, without utlilizing premises that already assume this conclusion.
Re. premise 3. I don't believe this is begging the question. I am not assuming that life on earth is the goal. I am proceeding from this observation: (1) right distance, (2) right condition... and then life. Life obviously is the goal for the preceeding two observable facts. If not, what else? Would chance be a goal... Chance is not a goal. It is a happening, or a frequency, I guess.
Here is another proof why premise 3 is not begging. If the distance is right but condition is not, then no life. If distance is wrong, but condition is right life may exist for a while but eventually will die. So? the two must be present to achieve a goal--life.
D writes:
The occurrence of an object on Mars with a seemingly human face caught the attention of individuals and organisations interested in extraterrestrial intelligence and visitations to Earth
I saw the link and the picture.I honestly don't see any image of man. What I saw were black dots on greyish spots. Sorry, I guess I'm not superstitous. Or, I see things differently from most.
Edited by Doubting Too, : No reason given.
Edited by Doubting Too, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Deftil, posted 10-06-2008 8:28 PM Deftil has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by bluescat48, posted 10-07-2008 1:00 AM NOT JULIUS has not replied
 Message 69 by Deftil, posted 10-08-2008 2:13 AM NOT JULIUS has replied

  
Dr_Tazimus_maximus
Member (Idle past 3470 days)
Posts: 402
From: Gaithersburg, MD, USA
Joined: 03-19-2002


Message 43 of 185 (485290)
10-06-2008 9:49 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by NOT JULIUS
10-06-2008 7:24 PM


Re: You Probably Got it Wrong
I don't get your point. If 99.99999999% is inimical to life, then how is it that life--the GOAL--is here? By accident? By what probability?
Hi Doubting Too, while I am sure that someone else on this board has pointed this flaw out to you I will point out this specific one. Your statement here falls under a general area of argumentation called a teleological arguement which makes one very important assumption, namely that the universe has a purpose and that purpose is to generate life. While this can form the basis for latter arguements you have to support this assumption first, otherwise your whole logic chain collapses like a house built on sand. For example one can make a reasonable statement that life has a purpose, primarily to replicate itself. The backing for this is that this is something that all life does. It says nothing about the purpose being built in by a higher (or lower) power or where this purpose comes from, but this purpose can be supported by a common denominator accross all forms of life discovered to date, namely that they replicate themselves. As far as I have ever seen no one has ever succeded in creating a logical arguement that the universe has a purpose, generally the arguements come to a final conclusion termed a scotish verdict, essentially case unproven. What basis do you have to support the claim that the goal of the universe is life? And please do not say that the proof is that we (or life) are here because the counter is what was pointed out to you, that the goal could also be to support empty space with everything else a by product, or the goal could be to start and burn stars out, again with life being a by product, etc.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by NOT JULIUS, posted 10-06-2008 7:24 PM NOT JULIUS has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by NOT JULIUS, posted 10-07-2008 4:08 PM Dr_Tazimus_maximus has replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 865 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 44 of 185 (485291)
10-06-2008 10:30 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by NOT JULIUS
10-06-2008 6:24 PM


Re: You Probably Got it Wrong
Can you prove that 'life on earth' was a goal, rather than something that just so happened out of multiple possibilities? That is assuming a goal. How do you know that? It seems to be a wild assumption to me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by NOT JULIUS, posted 10-06-2008 6:24 PM NOT JULIUS has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by NOT JULIUS, posted 10-07-2008 4:25 PM ramoss has not replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4443 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 45 of 185 (485294)
10-07-2008 1:00 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by NOT JULIUS
10-06-2008 9:11 PM


Re: You Probably Got it Wrong
I am proceeding from this observation: (1) right distance, (2) right condition... and then life. Life obviously is the goal for the preceeding two observable facts.
Why should there be a goal at all. Why not that life just occurs when the conditions are right. This earth may be the only planet with life or there may be millions of planets with life, obviously the universe is a pretty big place. To me life forms where the conditions are right, but there is no goal nor the earth is where it is so life can occur.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by NOT JULIUS, posted 10-06-2008 9:11 PM NOT JULIUS has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024